• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Extracted from: Occupation of Socastee Bluff: Data Recovery at the Singleton Sawmill Site (38HR490), Horry County. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., 2007. Chapter VI. The Sawmill at Enterprise Our third research question guiding this data recovery emphasized an Industrial Period (1880-1920) research theme. In Chapter II, we presented a general research theme to guide our investigation of the industrial sawmill complex at Enterprise: Industrial Period Research Themes (1880-1920). Preliminary historical research indicates that 38HR490 may have been abandoned by the 1880s. However, by 1910 it appears that the site is the center of activity associated the community of Enterprise. Spurred by a thriving lumber industry, a number of sawmills sprang up in the county. Initial research revealed that Mr. J. W. Singleton owned and operated a sawmill at Enterprise. The structural remains at this site identified along the river margin provide an opportunity to archaeologically investigate intact features associated with a sawmill. Furthermore, historical research should provide details about small privately owned sawmills in the area and shed light on this once-thriving lumber community. This portion of our research therefore falls under the auspices of Industrial Archaeology, a term first used 50 years ago to apply to the study of the physical remains of the Industrial Revolution in England (1750-1830) (Nevell 2007). Although initially referring to the archaeology of the physical remains of the Industrial Revolution, the term “industrial archaeology” has come to mean “the recording, study, interpretation and preservation of the physical remains of industrially related artifacts, sites and systems within their social and historical contexts” (Clouse 1995). In the United States, the emphasis on such research began after World War II when the retooling of industry began to destroy elements of an earlier industrial heritage (Clouse 1995). Industrial archaeological sites can include factories, bridges, railroads, mills of all types, mines, ironworks, even potteries. In the 1980s, industrial archaeologists in the United States began to focus on the manufacturing industries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under the auspices of historic archaeology. There was an increasing recognition of the importance of textiles mills, iron works, mineral mines, and other such industries as they fell into decline. English industrial archaeologists continued to focus on studies of the mechanics, or physical character, of individual industries or structures. Nevell (2007) calls this a “techno-centric approach” but noted that it had a “consequent lack of synthesis.” Researchers (Clouse 1995; Joseph et al. 2004) in the field advocate the use of these studies as indicators of social change and suggest a link between mechanization and social processes. This expansion of the original intent of the phrase industrial archaeology can result in a more comprehensive view of how industries contributed to society, both economically and socially. To understand the system in operation at Enterprise, we focused on the concepts of the community, the labor force, technology, and commerce/economy. As we conducted our historical research, it became apparent that there is virtually no information on sawmills in South Carolina available. Particularly, there are no reports documenting archaeological investigations of such resources. We therefore felt that the most significant value of this investigation would be to provide such data. For this reason, we have focused intensively on the forestry industry. To understand the broader context of the sawmill, the following discussion 96 Extracted from: Occupation of Socastee Bluff: Data Recovery at the Singleton Sawmill Site (38HR490), Horry County. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., 2007. presents an overview of the lumber industry in the United States, focusing on what was occurring in the northern coastal region of South Carolina. Finally, we present specific data about what was transpiring at Socastee Bluff and 38HR490 during the lumber industry boom of 1880-1920. Overview of the Forest Industry Although our focus on the sawmill pertains to the production of usable lumber (e.g., planks, railroad cross ties, structural beams), the forest industry can be divided into three major economic endeavors (South Carolina Forestry Commission [SCFC] n.d.): 1. Naval Stores (1700-1720; 1820-1880); 2. Timber and Lumber (1870-1930); 3. Paper and Pulp Wood (1930-present) Each of these three aspects of the forestry industry played important roles in the economic development of South Carolina in general, and Horry County in particular. Naval Stores. The first significant commercial timber industry in the Carolinas was the naval stores industry. Naval stores is the collective name of all products derived from the gum of the pine tree, primarily used in caulking and waterproofing ships, although a wide range of associated products were derived from the processed pines (Horry County Historical Society [HCHS] 2004). By the early 1700s, the southern yellow pine was the major source of naval stores (tar, pitch, and turpentine) in the Carolinas. Tar and pitch made from the sap of pine trees greased wagon wheels, waterproofed cordage, and caulked ships. Traditionally the tar was obtained from the Baltic countries, but the wars with France jeopardized the supply and raised the price. British officials and Americans took advantage of the large tracts of pine trees in the state and by 1700 Carolinians were making pitch and tar in considerable quantities (Weir 1983). The season for making these products was long, costs were low and raw materials were abundant. The southern portion of the state initially dominated the naval stores industry, but that production was disrupted by the Yamassee War (1715-1717). As a result of this, the vast majority of the tar and pitch exported came from the northern part of the state after 1715. By 1717 nearly 44,000 barrels a year were being exported from South Carolina (Weir 1983). However, within the next several years, the market was glutted. Also, Swedish tar was often preferred by English rope makers as it was made from green trees where Carolinians made theirs from dead trees. South Carolinians responded by making pitch instead of tar and began harvesting the trees themselves. The naval stores boom was running its course by the end of the period and was significantly decreased by 1720 when the focus turned to cultivation of indigo and rice production (Weir 1983), activities for which Horry County was not suited. 97 Extracted from: Occupation of Socastee Bluff: Data Recovery at the Singleton Sawmill Site (38HR490), Horry County. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., 2007. Major commercialization of the industry occurred in the 1800s (HCHS 2004.). A second boom in Horry County began in the 1820s and peaked in the 1880s. The industry was still active, albeit on a lesser scale, until just before World War II (SCFC n.d.). By then, the (long leaf) pine forests were depleted and the industry moved to other parts of the Southeast where long leaf pine forests were still intact (HCHS 2004). Timber and Lumber. The timber and lumber industry primarily focused on the manufacture of lumber used for construction. Timber refers to standing or felled trees. Lumber is the end product of timber processing as a material suitable for construction use. Early colonial mills were primitive and logs were cut using two man teams who practiced the pit-sawing method (Brodbeck 2003; Williams 1989). This method involved first squaring the logs using axes and then placing the log on a frame over the pit. Two men, one above and one below, would laboriously hand saw boards, with a hard day’s work yielding anywhere from 100-200 board feet of sawn lumber (Nassey 1960). Although fairly primitive, this technique was in common usage in the Southeast until the Civil War (Nassey 1960). The relatively low demand for wood and the community markets allowed for this primitive method to be successful (Nassey 1960). The method had a low site impact and was environmentally friendly, as only selective trees were cut (Nassey, 1960; Williams 1989). The next technological innovation in sawmills is the conversion to water power. This new system, called a Muley saw, consisted of a single saw attached to a waterwheel from which it derived its power (Nassey 1960). Even though this system was often used in conjunction with grist mills, it was capable of sawing 8,000 board feet a day (Williams 1989). This method was capable of supplying a greater amount of wood for growing communities demanding lumber. Additionally it created few pollutants and still cut a relatively limited amount of wood which limited its impact on forests. Mill location was an important consideration. The proposed location needed to have adequate access to and from the mill whether by water or rail, there had to be abundant water both for power and for the employees, and there had to be sufficient level land for constructing the mill (Climax Locomotive [CL] 2007). Despite the technological innovations being applied, logging still involved a great deal of manual labor. Logs were brought to the mill by horse or ox teams. At the mills, logs had to be loaded and moved by hand as initially only the saw was powered. As mills grew larger, they would be placed in more permanent facilities on a river, where the logs could be floated downstream to them. An early improvement to these permanent mills was the development of a water powered moveable carriage to move the log into the saw blade. By far the greatest improvement in technology for sawmills was the introduction of the steam engine. First introduced into sawmill operations in 1830, it further increased output and timber 98 Extracted from: Occupation of Socastee Bluff: Data Recovery at the Singleton Sawmill Site (38HR490), Horry County. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., 2007. production, although the steam engine did not replace the water wheel on a large scale until the 1880s (Williams 1989).

Load more

  38

Copy Link